# 23. When Events required that the Romans should pass Judgement on Subject Peoples they avoided a Middle Course51

‘The state of things in Latium was now such that it could stand neither peace nor war.’ The most unhappy of all unhappy positions is that of a prince or of a republic which is reduced to such extremities that it can neither accept peace nor sustain war. Such a position arises when the conditions of peace are too severe, and war means that either they become the prey of their allies or that they remain a prey to their enemies. All such extremities are brought about by bad counsels and bad decisions, made without first estimating carefully the forces at one’s disposal, as has been said above. For the republic or the prince who measures his forces well, will with difficulty be brought to the pass to which the Latins were led. For they came to terms with the Romans when they ought not to have done so, and declared war on them when they ought not to have declared war; and by so doing created a situation in which the enmity and the friendship of the Romans was from their point of view equally harmful. The Latins, therefore, were conquered and brought into complete subjection, first by Manlius Torquatus and then by Camillus, who, having forced them to surrender unconditionally, and having put garrisons in all the Latin towns and everywhere taken hostages, returned to Rome and announced to the senate that all Latium was in the hands of the Roman people.

Since what Camillus said is important and deserves the attention of all rulers who would emulate his example should occasion arise, I shall here quote the words which Livy puts into the mouth of Camillus, for they bear witness to the way in which the Romans extended their dominions, and also to the fact that in judgements pronounced by their government they always avoided a middle course, and preferred the extremes. For government consists in nothing else but so controlling subjects that they shall neither be able to, nor have cause to, do you harm; which may be done either by making quite sure of them by depriving them of all means of doing you harm, or by treating them so well that it would be unreasonable for them to desire a change of fortune. All this is made quite clear, first by Camillus’s statement and then by the judgement the senate came to in its regard. These are Livy’s words: ‘The immortal gods have vouchsafed to you the power to decide whether Latium is to be or not to be. Its future lies in your hands. In so far as the Latins are concerned, it rests with you to make a peace which shall be perpetual, either by punishing them cruelly or by pardoning them. Do you think it advisable to be brutal towards those who have surrendered and been conquered? If so, you can wipe out the whole of Latium. Do you want, after the manner of our forefathers, to augment the Roman state by admitting the conquered to citizenship? The material whereby to increase it to its great glorification lies ready to hand. Of a surety that empire is most secure in which obedience is conjoined with happiness. It behoves you then to subjugate them while their minds are so stunned that they know not what to expect, either by punishing them or by becoming their benefactor.’ Having heard this proposal, the senate came to a decision which followed the lines the consul had laid down, which was that, after duly considering one by one each town, they should either treat all citizens of importance generously or wipe them out; by conferring on those they treated generously exemptions and privileges, granting them citizenship, and using every endeavour to make them loyal; and by demolishing the towns of the others, sending colonies there, and taking the inhabitants back to Rome or so dispersing them that they could no longer do harm either by appeal to arms or by their machinations. Nor did they ever adopt a middle course as I have said, of importance, towards men and other rulers should imitate them in this.

This is what the Florentines should have done when in 1502 Arezzo and the whole of the Val di Chiana revolted. If they had done this, they would have made their dominion secure, Florence would have become a great city, and they would have acquired that lebensrauma which they lacked. But they adopted that middle course, which is the most prejudicial that men can take. Some of the Aretines they banished, some they condemned [to death], and from all they took away the honours and positions sanctioned by the ancient customs of that city. But the city they left intact. And if in their discussions any citizen advised that Arezzo be destroyed, the reply given by those who seemed to be more wise was that to destroy it would do little credit to the republic, since it would appear that Florence had not the forces to hold it. Such arguments are based on appearances, not on the truth. For on this showing no parricide or criminal or notorious person would be put to death for fear lest, by so doing, a ruler should show that he had not the power to curb a particular individual. Those who are of this opinion do not see that, whenever men individually or a whole city offends against a state, its ruler has, both as an example to others and for his own security, no alternative but to wipe them out. Honour consists here in being able, and knowing how, to castigate it, not in being able to hold it, thereby incurring a thousand risks. For the ruler who does not punish an offender in such a way that he cannot offend again, is deemed either an ignoramus or a coward.

The policy of the Romans in this matter is again confirmed, if there be need to confirm it, by the judgement they passed on the Privernates. In what Livy says of it two things should be noted: first, as has been said above, that subject peoples should either be generously treated or be wiped out; secondly, how helpful a generous disposition may be, and how helpful it is to tell the truth when one is called on to give evidence before prudent men. The Roman senate had met to pronounce judgement on the Privernates, who had rebelled, but had subsequently been forced to return to the Roman obedience. The people of Privernum had sent many of their citizens to ask the senate to pardon them. When they came before the senate, one of them was asked by a senator: ‘What punishment he thought the Privernates deserved?’ To which the man from Privernum replied: ‘That which men deserve who think themselves worthy of freedom.’ To which the consul answered: ‘Supposing that we remit the penalty, what kind of peace can we expect to have with you?’ His answer was: ‘If you are good to us, a loyal perpetual peace; if you treat us badly, not a long one.’ Though many dissented, the wiser among the senators then said: ‘We have been listening to those who are both men and free men; nor do I think it possible for any people or any man to remain longer than he can help in a situation which he deplores. Peace treaties can be relied upon when they are made voluntarily. Loyalty is not to be expected from those who are ready to become slaves.’ In consequence of this speech, it was decreed that the Privernates should become Roman citizens, and should share in the privileges and honours which citizenship conferred. ‘Those whose minds are set on liberty, and nothing but liberty’, it was said, ‘are worthy to be made true Romans.’

Such was the pleasure which this straightforward and generous answer gave to generous minds. To have given any other would have been deceitful and base. Those who believe that men are not like this, especially when they have been accustomed either to being free men or to looking on themselves as free men, are mistaken, and decisions based on this mistake are neither good for those that make them, nor satisfactory to others. Hence come frequently rebellions and the ruin of states.

But to return to our main topic. From the two judgements passed on these Latin peoples, I conclude that, when sentence has to be passed on cities which are powerful and accustomed to a life of freedom, either they should be eliminated or they should be caressed. Any other decision is futile. At all costs should the middle course be avoided; for it is hurtful, as it was to the Samnites when they caught the Romans in the Caudine Forks and were unwilling to follow the advice of the old man who told them either to treat the Romans as honourable men and to set them free, or to kill the lot. For they took the middle course, disarmed them, marched them under the yoke, and then set them free, burning with shame and indignation. With the result that, later on, they learned to their cost that the old man’s advice was sound and their own decision harmful, as will be shown more at length in its proper place.





Book Two



[DISCOURSES 24–7]


[Mistakes Often Made in Connection with War]